CITY OF BURBANK
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER

 MEMORANDUM

DATE:            March 22, 2005

TO:                 Mary J. Alvord, City Manager

FROM:           Betsy Dolan, Administrative Analyst II

SUBJECT:   Charter Review Committee

Purpose

Staff is requesting City Council direction regarding the structure and appointment of a Charter Review committee. 

Background
On April 9, 2002 , the City Council directed staff to advertise for a Charter Review committee comprised of eleven members charged with preparing a ballot measure on filling vacancies for elective offices and performing an overall review of the charter.  The City received only seven applications, and due to election cycle time constraints, the Council directed staff to delay appointment of a committee and provide options for a charter amendment on filling vacancies for elective office.  Voters passed this charter amendment (Measure O) during the General Municipal Election in April 2003. 

Due to the insufficient number of applicants, staff requested direction from the Council with respect to the committee on July 15, 2003 .  Council directed staff to seek recommitment from the original applicants and to reach out to the community to secure more applicants.  Staff ran special large ads in the newspaper; placed the information on the City’s website and on the Channel 6 scroll; contacted 13 service clubs in the community to apprise them of the opportunity and to distribute a flyer advertising the committee; contacted the Chamber of Commerce to assist in disseminating this information; and produced a special Public Service Announcement.  The City has received 21 applications (Exhibit 1). 

Previous Burbank Charter Review Committees

The last two Charter Review committees were appointed in 1970 and 1983.  The Council appointed the members of both committees, and the committees were solely advisory bodies asked to review the charter and make recommendations to the Council for consideration and submission to the voters for approval.  The 1970 committee consisted of 20 members and was chaired by Byron E. Cook. 

The 1983 committee, chaired by George Battey, consisted of 16 members and was divided into the following four subcommittees:  Elections; City Council and Boards & Commissions; Personnel and Management; and Budget, Taxation and General Business Relations.  The City Attorney’s Office and the City Manager’s Office staffed the committee, and other City officials participated in the process when necessary. 

The committee sent out letters requesting comments and recommendations to the Boards and Commissions, the City employee associations, the Chamber of Commerce, and the local press.  In addition, the committee held an open forum designed specifically to receive public testimony on the charter.  The committee submitted its final recommendations to the Council for consideration, and the City held a Special Election on June 5, 1984 to submit the proposed charter amendments to the voters.  The voters ratified all of the proposed charter amendments, with the exception of charter amendment No. 3, which proposed the elimination of the Primary Nominating Election.   

In 2001, subsequent to a staff review of the charter, the Council placed several other administrative charter amendments on the General Election ballot as Measure 2, which was approved by the voters. 

Glendale Charter Review

In 2000, the Glendale City Attorney’s Office submitted a report to the Council on proposed charter amendments.  The amendments are divided into Tier I (the bulk of the proposals, about 30 amendments, administrative in nature) and Tier II.  The Council reviewed the report and decided to have a citizen committee review the proposed amendments and consider amendments of their own.  The Council directed the City Clerk to advertise for applicants and appointed 15 members from a list of 20 applicants on February 18, 2003 .  Each Council Member appointed 3 members, either from the list of 20 or any qualified elector.  The committee selected the Chair and Vice Chair.  Chair Eileen Givens is a former Mayor and also former member of a past Charter Review committee.  The City Attorney and City Manager are ex-officio members, but it is predominantly the City Attorney who participates and serves as staff liaison.  The Council also sought input from the public. 

Staff grouped the suggested amendments, and the City Attorney prepared a work plan based on all input received.  The Council appropriated $12,000 to help the committee obtain needed assistance.  Staff reached an agreement based on the work plan with Dr. Raphael Sonenshein, who served as consultant for the Los Angeles Charter Review committee, as well as for Pasadena when they conducted their last review in 1998.  The Glendale committee has been meeting twice per month for about one year, and the proposed charter amendments will be placed before the voters during the April 5, 2005 election.  Glendale’s charter review process resulted in 21 proposed changes, 20 of which are described as administrative or “cleanup” in nature and one of which is substantive (to prohibit the sale of open space/recreational property of five or more acres without a vote of the electorate).

Pasadena Charter Review

The last charter review conducted in Pasadena was in 1998, and the purpose was specifically to review the operation of their school district.  The Pasadena Unified School District is comprised of the cities of Pasadena , Sierra Madre and Altadena .  The consultant hired for this job was Dr. Raphael Sonenshein, who has since consulted on Los Angeles ’ charter review and is currently working with Glendale . In addition, a public relations firm was hired to handle the public outreach process. 

The 11-member Charter Reform Task Force on School District Governance, chaired by Chris Holden, met twice a month and ultimately made approximately 49 recommendations, some of which required charter amendments.  The proposed charter amendments were placed on the ballot as advisory measures, and all passed. 

The cost for this process was $247,000 ($217,000 – Pasadena , $5,000 – City of Sierra Madre , and $25,000 – County of Los Angeles , as Altadena is in Supervisor Antonovich’s district).  About a year later, the Task Force reconvened to review the effect of the changes implemented, at an additional cost of $63,000 to Pasadena .  The total cost was $310,000. 

Analysis

The following is a discussion of several issues for Council consideration in convening a Charter Review committee.  These issues include committee selection and composition, and committee tasks and staffing. 

Committee Selection and Composition

The following options for committee selection and composition are based on the Council’s direction on April 9, 2002 to convene a committee of 11 members.  

In determining the composition of the committee, there are several issues the Council may wish to consider:

·      Obtaining a quorum for regular meetings becomes more difficult as committee membership increases.  The Council may increase or decrease the committee membership from 11 at its discretion; however staff recommends that the committee membership be no larger than 11 or 13 as discussed above.  In the event that members leave the committee, staff recommends the Council allow the quorum threshold to be lowered in relation to the committee membership to enable the committee to continue working while the Council seeks replacements.  The smaller number of committee members will also make the work of the committee more efficient.

·      The Council may wish to consider appointing the chair of the committee at the same time the Council selects and /or votes on the committee membership.

·      The Council may also wish to consider holding public interviews at an upcoming Council meeting for the 21 applicants before the Council votes to select the committee members from the applicant pool.  These interviews will allow the Council to gain a greater understanding of each applicant’s qualifications and interest.  The interview date would be scheduled to allow time to appropriately notify the applicants. 

·      Staff recommends that the Council select Option 3, which allows each Council Member to select one committee member from all qualified electors of the City of Burbank and the remaining six from the applicant pool through a vote of the entire Council.  This would allow the Council to consider people who have served or are serving on City commissions or committees, but who are not part of the applicant pool.  The Council could also consider appointing residents who have previously served the City in other capacities such as former Council Members and Board Members, or past City executives, etc.  Past experience in City government would ensure that the Charter Review committee has important City knowledge that would be beneficial in reviewing the charter.  Council Members would not be precluded from making their individual selections under Option 3 from the applicant pool.  Similar to Option 3, Option 2 would also give the Council the flexibility to appoint committee members with previous government experience. 

Committee Tasks and Staffing

Generally, the purpose of the Charter Review committee would be to review the charter and make recommendations for amendments to the Council for approval and submission to the voters for ratification.  However, this is a very broad and potentially nebulous task.  Staff recommends that the Council provide some structure and direction to the committee by allowing staff to summit suggested charter amendments and issues for review.  These suggested amendments would be submitted to the committee as a work plan, and the committee would review and evaluate staff’s suggested amendments.  The committee would not be limited to discussing only these issues and may identify additional charter amendments and issues for review.  Glendale ’s most recent charter review was conducted in a similar way with staff providing initial recommendations for consideration.  The City Attorney’s Office would take the lead in developing the work plan, serving as the staff liaison to the committee, and coordinating all staff assistance to the committee including the oversight of a possible consultant and preparation of all required materials such as agenda, informational report, minutes, etc. 

Staff would also assist the committee in soliciting public input on potential charter amendments through a variety of methods such as community meetings and direct solicitation of input from union groups, Boards and Commissions, community groups, etc.  The committee meetings would be open to the public and held pursuant to the Brown Act, and staff would provide clerical support during the meetings to take minutes.   

Staff recommends that the Council also consider the use of a consultant to assist the committee in its work.  While City staff would provide the committee with information specific to the City of Burbank and the proposed amendments, a consultant would provide general information on charter issues as well as an objective analysis of the issues before the committee. 

The City of Glendale used Dr. Raphael Sonenshein during its charter review process to provide background on charter issues before the committee.  The consultant typically provided a 20 to 30 minute presentation on the committee’s current topic each meeting and was available to answer additional questions and provide objective analysis of the pros and cons of various amendment options.  The cost of the contract was not-to-exceed $12,000.   

The City of Culver City has also hired Dr. Sonenshein to serve as a facilitator for its charter review process, but Culver City is having him take a more involved role than he did with the City of Glendale .  Dr. Sonenshein is assisting the committee in creating its work plan and organizing the issues the committee wishes to address.  He is also helping staff identify and conduct the initial research required and will be involved in the ongoing committee meetings.  The cost of the contract is not-to-exceed $25,000. 

For both Glendale and Culver City , the cost of the contract was based on Dr. Sonenshein’s hourly rate and a staff estimate of the number of hours his services would be required.  Staff anticipates that the committee will use a consultant as a facilitator similar to the Culver City model.    

Fiscal Impact

Staff estimates the direct cost for a Charter Review committee will be approximately $40,000 including the cost of a consultant, clerical support, refreshments, and additional costs and materials (copying, supplies, etc).  This estimate assumes the committee will meet twice per month for one year, and the consultant cost will be $125 per hour for 200 hours.  Depending on the timing of the selection of the consultant, staff will either return to Council for approval of an appropriation to cover the cost of the consultant, or will including the funding request as part of the FY 05-06 budget.  This appropriation request will also include funding for additional direct costs such as clerical support, refreshments, and additional materials.

Another direct cost that may arise out of the charter review process is the cost of a special election to submit the charter amendments to the voters.  Should the Council decide to submit the amendments at a time other than the next municipal election in 2007, staff estimates that the cost of a special election would be approximately $120,000. 

There are also potential indirect costs associated with the charter review process including the cost of staff time to manage the committee and the consultant, and time to conduct the appropriate research and prepare needed documents. 

Recommendation

Staff requests that the City Council provide direction regarding the convening of a Charter Review committee. 

Should the Council decide to convene a Charter Review committee, staff recommends that the committee be selected and structured as follows:

1. Committee composition will be made up of one member selected from all qualified electors by each Council Member for a total of five plus six members selected from the applicant pool through a vote of the Council (Option 3).

2. Council will appoint the committee chair at the same time the Council selects and/or votes on the committee membership. 

3. Quorum will be adjusted in the event that members leave the committee to allow the committee to continue its work while the Council seeks replacements. 

4. The Council will hold applicant interviews at an upcoming Council meeting.  The interview date will be set to allow time to appropriately notify the applicants. 

5. Staff will provide proposed charter amendments in a work plan to the committee for review to provide initial direction and structure to committee meetings. 

6. Staff will select a qualified consultant to assist the committee with its work.  Depending on the timing of the selection of the consultant, staff will either return to Council for approval of an appropriation to cover the cost of the consultant, or will include the funding request as part of the FY 05-06 budget.  This appropriation request will also include funding for additional direct costs such as materials or clerical costs.

  Attachments

Exhibit 1 – Charter Review Committee Applications